@@gdobie1west988 spoken like you already know the Truth, as if you can willing dictate when your own body will stop ceasing... You have no control when you're hungry but are subjugated by something higher than your mind .. which lets you know when to eat sleep drink and live another Day...
If you need a deity to give you rules on morals you have no clue. You realise man created god so everything your God says is actually man right? so morals come from man not god you halfwit
He didn't do the best job but he is correct. Human morality is subjective. Human morality objectively helps humans to prosper. However human prosperity is not objectively good. Think of all the harm to other life forms and the planet that human prosperity causes. This is simple because human prosperity is objectively bad for other things what we consider good is clearly subjective.
One thing I can always count on when I see Peter Atkins struggle to make a coherent, logically consistent point in any of his debates is a reaffirmation of my faith.
@@tobythedog3606 confidence in the worldview is what is mentioned lol, crazy that had to be pointed out. When the atheist worldview is shown to be incoherent again, i can vouch it does strengthen the non atheist resolve.
@@oldglstuf I didn't see it but I listen to Jordan Peterson a lot(especially his debates) and I like how articulate he is and I believe that when you admire someone so much, you begin to sort of model yourself after him.
How many hundreds of years have failed Christian rule do you need to learn about before you have to admit the tomorrow code of the Bible is absolutely disgusting
The "morality that led to stability," which is cited by the atheist, came about through the institution of the Church. The pre-Christian acceptance of familial and clan slaughter was the norm.
Are you saying that people born before the invention of Christianity were amoral. Really? And are you actually saying Christianity hasn’t slaughtered countless people?
There was always an in group morality that strongly differed from the out group morality. The question of how many people are part of your in-group depends on the setup of the society not on religion.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 I don't accept situational ethics. The morality of the world when the Apostles preached was unacceptable to the Church and it was to a great degree changed for the better.
@@sharidandan4172 Oh really? What about cancer, dementia, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, heart attack, stroke, supranuclear palsy, multiple system atrophy, and organ (heart, lung, kidney or liver) failures.? Did we come up with them? Or how about Earthquakes, Volcanos, Tornados, andTsunamis? Did God not create these things? Need I go on *BRO?!*
Just can never admit that they have no foundation for morality. They want it to be so bad, but they just stammer around making excuses. It’s the best they can do.
@@CharlieJulietSierra Nope. ID was refuted by scientists and then further disproved in a court of law during the Kitzmiller vs Dover case. The final nail in its coffin was when its biggest proponent, Michael Behe, admitted under cross examination that there is no evidence for it and it doesn't count as a scientific theory. The reason it's not science is because it's not based on verifiable evidence, it doesn't explain related observations with any measurable degree of accuracy, it posits no laws, it posits no mechanism, it's untestable, and unfalsifiable. As such it failed to meet the minimum criteria of science, and it is nothing but a philosophical argument akin to the teleological argument.
“If I were to summarize my own modus operandi, I would say, I hold the distinctive morality I hold because I was raised in a Christian society. If I were raised in a Muslim society, I would believe it is appropriate to drop off hands for stealing. Neither is right and neither is wrong. I simply find one to be particularly distasteful”
Atkins was troubled. How on earth can such a learned man of Chemistry get so imprisoned by his own thinking? all it demonstrates is that education forces you to remember information without really asking you to think what is going on in the bigger picture. God and education enables knowledge to have perspective.
@@rf7477 Atkins is correct though. Human morality is subjective. The mistake I see being made is assuming that if something is objectively good for humans than it is objectively good which is not the case. Human prosperity by default is bad for other things. Think of all the damage to other forms of life that comes from human prosperity. You're not really looking at the bigger picture when your frame of reference is only considering what's good for humans.
@@187mako1977 Home sapiens is a quite destructive species. Many of us are aware of it now. If we don't learn self regulation we might very well cause our own demise. That is the bigger picture. The invention of gods and all the associated superstitions with a heavenly payout have done nothing except contribute to destructive behaviour. Many "christians" even yearn for an "end of times" and the final destruction of the world. It's as if heaven is more important than Earth. A foolish idea.
Atkins position is illogical and the only option left for him was to interrupt and not allow Craig to make his points. It is unfortunate that nothing blinds a man like wilful blindness.
Which of the following would you least trust if you had to trust a complete stranger with your cash: #1 A devout Christian (answerable to God) #2 A devout Buddhist (answerable to karma) #3 An atheist who believes in no (ultimate) accountability
No one is righteous, no, not even one. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The answer is, you can't trust any of them. But the one who thinks there are no moral consequences before God? He doesn't know or follow God's commandments? Can you trust him? Only if you test him, communicate with him, and demonstrate your own intention making an impression upon him. Given time to think and answer on what's right for him to do, an atheist will reach for high morals. He will realize it's the point. He will adopt God's policies, but refuse to give God credit for having them written. He will deny there is God by definition. To him, there's no god but himself. He wants to be seen by you doing the very thing God would have him do. Now can you trust him? Try it with small amounts at first. He will adjust as things go along. He may try to put it back on you that if he uses your cash on a given day, you should have handled your own affair and your own money. He is an individual and the world must revolve around his opinion. So, be careful. Another one on the list may say he made a mistake, used your cash, and will pay it back later. Still another will say you will feel better if you are relieved of that burden, when you have freed yourself of these desires of yours, you are another step closer to enlightenment. Where's your money though? Joe Biden gasoline and It's the cost of every inflated thing going up. He saved you the trouble and ran your errand you would make later. One man makes the trip once for the group. Do you want some of the food and drink he bought? We all rationalize. Maybe you can assert yourself beforehand with the atheist and trust him? Try it. When the one who admitted his mistake and asked you to trust and wait, has some money come in of his own? You need to be the one who kept track of the amount perhaps, but he knows and will pay your way. If he forgets? Nudge him a little. Your turn to buy. You used the money you were holding of mine. At the end of the day, it depends on the man. Not the belief system. I think. Put your money in the bank where grandma always told you. Or, invest it to something you trust and have good reason to trust. You do have to run a good race to get ahead of inflation. But all three could be good friends in the list. A fool and his money can measure. But don't be so covetous that you lose those friends you are trying to make. Be communicative and assertive.
You assume that a theist is likely to be more moral this is not only false its DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. You know that there have been many studies to assess the religiosity of societies in comparison with their number of murders ,rapes, thefts, ,abortions , drug use , single parents, even wealth and health America dispite being one of the most christian countries in the world has the HIGHEST murder rate per capita anywhere in the world 🤔🤔🤔 it also has amongst the worst results in many of the above categories. Yet those we regard as the most atheistic secular ( the Scandinavian, sweden ect) score much much better and are amongst the best in those same categories. Hmmm.🤔🤔🤔 For example one of many ........ *"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies"*
@@PramodKumar-gy8lb But that assumes that you're a good decision maker. But evidentially you offer points of information that you're not - because you say Kent Hovind is a devout Christian. Is he? What makes one devout?
Atkins shoots himself in the foot when he admits that other societies do things differently, because he has made what is good for society his standard for morality. But if different societies have different standards, and there is not objective moral truths by which anyone society can be judged, then no one society has the right to say it is more moral than another. So when Atkins says he doesn't like people getting their hands cut off, that's really just his personal preference, nothing more.
Not if you base your moral standard on well-being. Then it’s pretty easy to see that firstly, stealing from others goes against well-being, and secondly, cutting off their hands also goes against well-being. It’s really not difficult at all.
@@pomegranatepip2482 do you really believe different people and cultures agree on what “well-being” means for everyone? The Nazis believed that their well-being would be enhanced by killing Jews.
@@pomegranatepip2482the well-being of who? I base my morality on the well-being of myself what's to stop me from robbing and killing in order to improve my well-being? If a society bases their well-being on that of the group what's to say that cutting off the hands of those who rob from the group is not an appropriate response?
@@adayah2933 Morals arising from evolution? There is no scientific evidence that proves that lol Evolution speaks nothing about morals If anything, dropping your morals would increase your evolutionary fitness Having morality contradicts the evolutionary principles
@@adayah2933ah yes, evolution, a theory you’ve never read yet profess to believe while criticizing others who believe in a book which they have read. Some perspective is needed here
And if we asked what craig thought he would say "no, my opinions are facts without evidence" because that's all he brings to the table. A PDH on theology aka mythology vs a scientist and you go with the myths. Hilarious!
@@MrTheclevercat I was speaking directly to you, which could have been accompanied by a comma following your name, but RUclips would have automatically put a space in front of the comma, rendering the sentence grammatically incorrect. Do you have any more garbage-tier opinions to share, or are you just going to give some more views to Christian apologists like a good little free thinker?
If he would interfere with Hitler but would not cut off the hand of a thief in Saudi Arabia because he doesn't want to "interfere with the aspirations of another human being," I'd be interested to know where (exactly) he draws the line on ethical "interference in the aspirations of another human being...." He would trip over himself, explaining his moral high ground.
People who deny evolution are yet to postulate how evolution wouldn't occur knowing what we know. We observe evolution has happened so you need to explain how it only appears to be that way to everyone educated. You are going to fail miserably at this by the way.
Great conversation, fully agree with Lane Craig. I would mention that the little quips that were put in the discussion were a distraction to me and I would have preferred not seeing them. But that’s just me. Have a good day.
Atheists forget all the great scientists were religious, from Newton to Einstein. Plus, the advise in the Bible is sound, l recommend the book "none of these illnesses"
Einstein religious? No. And as for Newton, he was a theist but denied the divinity of Christ and didn't accept the doctrine of the Trinity so I suppose he will burn in hell for all eternity.
People argue evolution without taking a fresh look at the evidence, the more we study nature, the more we know about DNA the harder it becomes to say evolution is what happened here. Look it up! Look at the recent discoveries, don't take my word for it. Darwin was also a known racist and had zero knowledge of microbiology but if evolution excuses you to do whatever you like then IT'S PERFECT.
Also, Darwin's uncle Erasmus thought up the foundation of the theory, and Charles just added to it. The fact that Erasmus Darwin was a 33rd degree Freemason may or may not be relevant.
Now I could spend hours explaining the vast swaths of evidence regarding DNA and how it fits perfectly with Darwins model ( dispite him having "zero knowledge of microbiology" ) but I fear it would go so far over your head you would need a step ladder. So instead let's see if your a hypocrite shall we 😜 You're sceptical with regards to science and demand high standards of evidence. Thats ok infact I'm very much in favour of that myself. But do you apply those same evidentiary standards and levels of skepticism with regards to your religious beliefs ??? The bible makes claims of a 10,00 year old earth that suffered a global flood a mere few thousand years ago. A talking snakes & donkeys, tribes of giants , witches, Angel's, zombies , magic, all overseen by an invisible being. So I look forward to seeing your *observable, repeatable , falsefiable, predictable evidence* to support those beliefs. Now you also believe that the origins of man lie in a mud figurine becoming a living breathing man and a rib becoming a woman 🤣😅🤣😅 So once again present the "verifiable empirical evidence that supports this. Infact let's have a laugh that's my next question to you, just hold on a sec while I put a creatard dunce hat on 😂😂 Ok let's go How does a Rib become a woman? Do you have examples of any transitional fossils from said rib to woman.? If ribs can turn into women then why are there still ribs around ? Why do we not have examples of the RIB KIND turning into cat or dog kinds? How do you explain the second law of thermodynamics in regard to ribs, if we find less entropy In women ? Are ribs not irreducibly complex? Isn't it true that ribvolution is just a THEORY not a fact? If women are really ribs then why aren't they covered in barbecue sauce? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 I predictict now that you won't even attempt to answer any of my questions instead you will engage in evasion, obfuscation, misdirection. and the good old "tu quoque fallacy " ( or hypocrisy fallacy ) which typically use to deflects criticism away from yourself or your position by accusing others of the same problem or something comparable. It's often used to distract from the issue. Prove me wrong I dare you 😜
Like the one about stoning gays? Or stoning unruly children? Or stoning witches? Or stoning whatever else? No thanks, too much stoning for me. The rule about no murder though, they got that one right I think... as did every other religion, which bolsters the idea that morality arises from empathy, not religion.
@@piecrumbs9951 Right... Talking about the old testament aye? Try reading the new testament and understand better before you come here and spout nonsense. I am not much of a Christian, but if you want to argue against it, how about you become knowledgable first before making a fool out of yourself?
@@chromecobalt I'm aware of the new testament. Admittedly, my knowledge on either piece of scripture is limited; but from what very little information I've gathered, I've come under the impression that the new testament is a fulfillment of the old. Jesus says in Matthew "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Perhaps I am misinterpretting this as Jesus validating old testament laws, fine. There are plenty of atrocious morals in the new as well, like the notion that it is just to sacrifice an innocent person to vindicate the guilty, or to punish non-believers with eternal torment.
@@piecrumbs9951you are misrepresenting the text, and ignoring the context, which is extremely important. These laws were for a specific time, place, and people. You mentioned an 'unruly child', which isn't remotely what is described. It was a young adult, not some preteen or younger. They are so out of control as to literally endanger the family, as well as the entire camp. Not only are they calcitrant, they are described as a glutton and a drunk. The parents have exhausted every means of discipline, but they just become more defiant. He/ she is brought before the court, and witnesses are required. It's like situations where children's behavior is exponentially extreme in modern times, that parents recognize the seriousness of the behavior and its potential harm towards others. You've heard about parents who recognized deviant behavior, and failed to report it to authorities, and soon after, you are reading about another school shooting..one that could have been prevented had they done their duty to others. All o this is during the time of the Exodus, which was during formation of the Jewish community, and eventually them fulfilling their purpose of bringing the Messiah, the Savior of the world, as the means of reconciliation between God Aman. There's never been anything more sacred, and hol, so abhorrent, deviant, seriously egregious sin...DELIBERATE SIN..had to be severely punished. If you don't understand the condition of the fallen nature of humanity, and it's implications, you will never understand why these issues had to be dealt with...also only after a literal trial, and irrefutable proof of persistent, repeated deliberate, defiant sin...resulting in serious consequences, and to preserve the integrity of the entire nation, with its holy other calling and purpose. Just because you, me, or anyone else doesn't grasp the seriousness of the situation, that doesn't minimize it, or evaporate the drastic nature of the evil potential that was being cut out...like removing a cancerous leg to preserve the health and life of a human being. How much sense would it make to reason that removing a leg, cuttiing it off, and inflicting the obvious painful suffering involved, if it was for no apparent reason...then you are made aware that the person is still alive BECAUSE the leg, with itsvcancer was removed...especially if the 'leg' was fully conscious that what it had done caused the cancer, and adamantly, deliberately, defiantly, flippantly persisted in what he fully realized was deadly...not only to himself, but others...anyway?
Let me simplify it for you then. Human morality objectively helps humans to prosper. However human prosperity is not objectively good. Think of all the harm to other life forms and the planet that human prosperity causes. This is simple because human prosperity is objectively bad for other things what we consider good is clearly subjective.
Phil, the real proof of this God is the existence of the human race including you and I. One thing that is not debatable is that "Chance" does not have life and cannot give life. The Person that gave life to all living things including the human race is the One we call God. Anyone who created himself or can explain to us how all living things came into existence without invoking the position that "Chance" created us all which can only be believed by someone who has lost touch with reality. Two options to select from: #1. Supernatural Being called GOD created the Heaven and the Earth and all in them. Humans create and the creator of human beings surely can only be a greater creator. #2. Chance created all things including human beings and all living and non-living things. Chance does not have life and therefore cannot give life. Job 12:10 "In his (God) hand is the life of every creature and the breadth of all mankind." God put expiry date on all living things just the way humans put expiry date on products. That option #1 is what is logical and coherent is not in doubt. A man on the 10th floor of a building may like that gravity does not exist. However, if he jumps down, gravity will not hesitate to act normally. When the owner of breadth giving to all humans request for it from each of us one-by-one, it will become plain to everyone that he who did not create himself is answerable to his Creator. If a man is sincerely wrong, he will be open to learning and finding out the truth. However, when a man is wilfully wrong, there is no hope for such a person. Jesus Christ saves and if you let him He will give you a brand new life that you have been longing for with peace and rest unspeakable. Matthew 11:28 All the best!
If you seek, you will find. If you ask, you will receive. If you knock, the door will be opened to you. For everyone who seeks, finds. Everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who knocks has the door opened for them. The evidence is abundant if your attitude is correct, and your intent is sincere.
@J B Wrong. The scientific consensus is that the universe had no beginning and is in some sense eternal. Plus there are myriad examples of new things that had no creator. New species have evolved in your own lifetime.
@J B Based on the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only change states. Hence the reason why scientists say the energy was always there. Which also means the universe had no defined beginning.
@J B Your intuition means nothing when it comes to physics. If the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is anything to go by it means that energy is eternal. You could try to disprove it, but you don't stand much of a chance. I'm not saying that to provoke you, I'm saying it because you're not a professional cosmologist, astronomer or astrophysicist.
These atheist scientists are very intelligent people and very good at that they do, but I think one of their problems is they don’t think they need to understand the philosophical issues very well to debate people like Craig, which gets them into trouble. And then the atheist philosophers who do specialize in religion and know everything Craig does and more (Oppy, Draper, Smith, etc.) aren’t very good debaters.
Okay, so if you don’t think that philosophers like Oppy, Draper, and Smith have debating problems then I’m curious what your objections are to their arguments? Could you maybe outline an argument unique to one of those three names and provide a criticism?
@@michaelx5070 philosophy isnt evidence for anything. Debating someone like wlc is pointless, because no matter how much he is proven to be wrong, he will still spout the same bullshlt, because it makes peoples brain stop working, and money fall out of their pockets.
William Lane Craig has been made fun of all over the internet for his basic regurgitation of apologist arguments. If you think he is in any way saying something profound about philosophy (or anything for that matter) you need to go back to grade school.
Fascinating watching people convince themselves that they're witnessing some kind of "gotcha" when all they've done is reiterate their own dogmatic insistence that if a moral code doesn't have an absolute basis then there is no basis at all for it or any imperative to live by it. Such mental inflexibility being paraded with such pride!
I find it funny how atheists claim to love science, but according to them, their imagined 'big bang' is what "created" all of us! Yet we see order all around us, and in us, so that is contradictory unto itself. Explosions do not create order. They create disorder. Light off 10 sticks of dynamite under a computer. Not one time will all of the pieces ever come back down into one unit again, no matter how many times you tried that. Science proves that explosions create disorder, not order, so the "big bang" (explosion) supposedly creating order in our cells is contrary to actual scientific observation. Do atheists care? No. Because the big bang is the only way they think can explain away this universe existing without God. They just ignore how blatantly unscientific and illogical that explanation is. Ignorance is bliss. 😉
What grounding basis do you lay your moral assumptions on? In other words, why do you (likely) assume that murder is wrong? Or that theft of your neighbor's belongings is wrong? Or, perhaps, why your neighbor sleeping with your wife is wrong? These three social mores, enshrined in the very laws of our land, were set in stone ~1450 B.C.E. If you do hold those three statements to be true, one might venture to say that the 10 Commandments forms the basis of your moral code, then. Certainly it does mine. But, in my case, what forms the basis of the 10 Commandments upon which I, personally, hinge my sense of objective morality? That would be the law *giver,* who, it is written, goes by the name YHWH. This is what is called setting an *objective standard* for morality. It is rigid because objectivity is often rigid. It doesn't declare what to *do* if someone breaks one of these moral commands, just that it is intrinsically *wrong to* break one of them. So, if you alternatively derived 7/10 of these moral laws independently, I am inclined to ask from where, and on what basis does your nearly-identical moral code stand? Hammurabi hinged his laws, written centuries earlier, on *his* authority as king of Babylon. The Hebrews hinged their laws on the authority of God in the Highest, YHWH. Which set of moral codes is predominately followed by the citizenry of this world today, however? Not Hammurabi's, that's for sure. So, to make a long lecture short, what do you base your self-admittedly flexible objective moral code on if not the transcendent/divine, and then, what is this code which, in all probability, will be strikingly familiar to the 10 Commandments (though, by all means, prove my preconceptions wrong)? I am genuinely curious to read your response.
So...morality is relative...which means killing a baby is no different morally than loving one. Even the natives of Borneo know that murder is a moral issue....
@@MojoHaiku Even the 10 commandments are wrong. lol 1: worship only me 2: no drawing pictures of me (hmm, where have I heard that before?) 3: dont use my name as a cruse word god damnit 4: no worky on -saturday- sunday 5: honor your parents even when I tell them to sacrifice you to me 6: no killing, unless you use my name to do it 7: no sex outside of marriage, unless you have a concubine or sumthin 8: no stealing, even if its a matter of life n death 9: no lying, unless your spreading the lies of the bible 10: dont want what other ppl have. like a car, or a job, or money
Why is William Lane Craig wasting his time with someone who doesn't understand that his opinion and social majority are not a rational foundation for morality? This guy doesn't seem to have and understanding deeper than a typical college sophomores with respect to justifying his moral paradigm. Also what is the deal with all the silly interpolated memes and videos? That kind of dumbs the whole thing down.
That's not what he said. He was explaining how it's objectively better for human flourishing to behave a certain way. You and WLC seem to struggle with that simple concept. If you need a book to tell you that killing is wrong then you should be locked up
@@nakkadu for something to be objective, it has to have an external standard. This guy saying that flourishing is objectively better is based on, what? His opinion, majority opinion? What? He has no foundation on which to base his claim of objectivity. It is 100% subjective as a result. Oh and he may have been using the supposition that flourishing is good and defending his position but without explaining why that is the case, his defense falls apart. You claim that he was explaining how flourishing is better but he didn't do that at all, he simply made the claim and left it there. You seem to struggle with that simple concept.
@@nakkadu your statement that, if you need a book to tell you that murder is wrong, you should be locked up, is one of the most asinine things I have ever seen. Are you basing that on your feelings? Are you basing it on the fact that you are living on the Christian fumes of a postmodern world? You atheists who assume a modified judeo-christian ethic as a matter of course are intellectually dishonest with your atheism. Real atheism ends in nihilistic hopelessness as everyone knows. Be honest with yourself when saying that there is an objective standard, that you have no objective yardstick to appeal to.
@@nakkadu He appeals to the fact that, "What has emerged through evolution is a stable society when, on the whole, you don't kill your neighbor [...]." He appeals to mores and a complex interactive society but it didn't say why that is good. Flourishing is good because it's good? He's a relativist. Can you not follow the argument? Then he says that he didn't want to intrude or quench aspirations and that, on the whole, it's good not to intrude on the lives of others but didn't have any reason to say why it's good. You can't say that something is good because it is good. That's a very simple and easy to follow tautology. I listened to what he said and he did not describe the objective nature of his position at all. You can replace any state of affairs, events, or nature of being that he says is good with any other and the rationale will be identical. He acts like what he says is true simply by virtue of him having stated it. This is like high school logic class. Please provide the minute and second marker for where he states explicitly the justification for his claim that flourishing is objectively good. I don't deny that flourishing is good; however, I deny that he has any justification to make such a positive claim.
What a nice waste of 4 minutes of my life, was expecting some type of enlightenment from the debate because of the title. A good debate goes beyond ego, which these two are way above their heads on. Didn't hear anything about the Bible nor did I hear anything scientific.
@@ta3p-theannex3project84 Yes, Atkins was responding on the level of a toddler. On the question of the existence of objectove moral values, he responds as if completely not understanding the debate. Objective moral values TRANSCEND our own "opinions" of right and wrong. He cant explain why Hitler was OBLECTIVELY wrong without invoking an ultimate law giver. Instead he says Hitler was evil because "he thinks so"! 😄. If only our own opinions constitute whats right and wrong, then evil doesnt actually exist, its just a mental/cultural construct. This is a philosophy debate. Not a science or religion debate.
@@AJTramberg Bingo. Just by him using the words “I think” to describe something is evil means he is using a subjective analysis. Objective analysis does not require a personal opinion statement.
Atheists have nothing to do with Left wing ideology. Atheists simply don't believe in God. Their political beliefs, gender, occupations, place of residence and numerous other things are as varied as you can get.
There's objective in the ontological sense and objective in the epistemological sense. Morality is ontologically subjective (it does not exist outside of beings to think it up) and epistemologically objective (or, at least, inter-subjective). And, as we know that truth is not dependent upon any magic space pixie (for that would make truth subjective!), it's clear that morality does not require any magic space pixie. Wow--that took less time to destroy WLC than it took WLC to respond to the person. Also: Kalam is nothing but Anselm (as Kant showed that all cosmological arguments are just the ontological argument in disguise), and since we know that Anselm is garbage--so is Kalam.
Strawman argument. You assume a priori that God doesn’t exist and mischaracterise what Christian’s believe about Him. To Christians, God is the foundation of reality itself and both outside of and intimately involved in His creation.
@@joelvonthrum8658 "A priori" doesn't mean what you think it means. It means "independent of examination"; you think it means "Dismiss beforehand". You're simply wrong. And I don't mischaracterize anything; the christian god is a magic space pixie.
@@BAAWAKnight that’s one definition - another is ‘formed or conceived beforehand’ (Miriam Webster). And no - Christians don’t see God as a ‘magic space pixie’. That’s a strawman.
@@joelvonthrum8658 No, that's not the definition, and yes, christians do see god as a magic space pixie; you just don't like to admit it. So: no strawman.
@@BAAWAKnight insisting on definitions you prefer doesn’t validate them. My definition of ‘a priori’ is a valid one according to a dictionary. However, yours is also a valid definition as well. You are trying to tell me what I believe, and what no other Christian believes, which is disingenuous. Neither you or I believe in the God you describe.
Yes the questions should be "why?" If atheism were true, I mean actually true, and we all 'emerged' by accident from inanimate materials, with no purpose or reason to exist in the universe, then there would of course be zero reason to survive. Why would an "evolved" creature even have it coded in their DNA to try to reproduce or survive? But let's say that somehow it did. Ok then, let's survive! Let's kill anyone and anything that gets in our way.. because why not? Who is to say that's wrong? Well, nobody, if atheism were true. Oh, but it's better to evolve a moral code so we can all get along and survive. But why? Just kill them all, it doesn't matter. Even the atheists will tell you, that ultimately the earth and the universe will end, that there is no purpose or reason or design for it. So ultimately, there is no reason to even bother trying to survive, or defining good and evil, or anything at all! One last thing they didn't mention; without God, the immaterial things that do exist would not exist in any capacity whatsoever, such as Love, Beauty, Art, and Music. These things can not exist in a purely materialistic, accidental universe with no purpose (and neither can good and evil!) I honestly can't even imagine how miserable it must be to live a life without God!
Actually, without a supposed God it’s more important to have morality. As a biological entity, a group mammal my instincts are that I want to live, peaceful and safe.This life is all I have. Logically Christians don’t, they just want to die to go to a better place: “heaven”. So they welcome violence in hopes to “transition”…
I’m a Christian, but i seriously don’t see how the British professor was destroyed lol. I do see how his argument collapsed on itself but it doesn’t make Craig a savage debater. He didn’t really do anything 😂. Unless it’s just really late and I’m out of it
Well it was just his remark at the end when it collapsed. It's like watching someone saying my house of straw is strong and then a gust blows it over, then WLC come over and says I told you.
He led Peter into saying things that contradicted his own argument. He highlighted it so subtly that Peter didn't even catch it, but the more intelligent in the audience did. Hence the chuckles. It was brilliant.
And Neville Chamberlain did not object to Hitler or draw the line there. This guy does draw the line at Hitler. So which Brit should be believed as having the supreme moral character?
I must have missed the part where he was DESTROYED. He said it was wrong for religious leaders to tell people to stop taking potentially life saving medicine.
He was destroyed on that very point, not because Craig believes it's good for religious leaders to convince their congregations to stop taking medicine, but because Craig is the only one of the two men with a philosophical foundation from which to objectively assess and draw conclusions about the rectitude of moral actions. Atkins, as an atheist, doesn't have a means by which he can say whether something is objectively right or wrong in any universal sense. As such, his claim that "it is wrong for religious leaders to tell people to stop taking potentially life saving medicine" is fundamentally baseless, according to the natural consequences of his own world view.
@@jamesedward3619 Your reply is ironically laughable. Both men agree but only the religious perspective qualifies as being objectively moral…really. For most people in todays societies (evil people excluded) something is either right or wrong and you certainly don’t need a religious perspective to understand that and have an opinion. Anyone who doesn’t see that is blinded by their own religious bias. And Objectivity by definition is to not be influenced by personal bias. Both men had the same opinion - no one was destroyed. One man based his opinion on the societal standard of what is right or wrong. Another man based his opinion on the fact that morality must be theocratically based. As soon as he said “without a transcendent foundation…” his religious bias showed rendering his opinion un-objective. Both men had the same opinion - no one was destroyed. I doubt you see the irony due to your own apparent bias. But believe whatever makes you happy.
@@SneakyCaleb spoken with true religous bias and also missing the point of my comment about objectivity. But in all sincerity do please keep on believing in whatever makes you happy.
The key to this exchange is Dr. Craig's passing implication that religions other than Christianity are "athiest". He's not arguing that there needs to be some morals giver. He's arguing that his God is the one and only morals giver. Objectivity in morals, then, he defines as relative to his God alone, which is a purely subjective stance.
@@arcguardian In other words, if one assumes God exists then the morals one ascribes to that God are objective. Sure, but that's hardly helpful since the argument is based on an unprovable assumption.
@@bobs4429 u don't need to assume anything. Morality is either objective or subjective. U can follow each outcome to it's logical conclusion. Atheism is incapable of objective morality from a logical standpoint, theism is capable of objective morality from a logical standpoint. U don't even have to be religious or anti religious to understand those dynamics. Just plain critical thinking.
@@arcguardian The definition of "morals" is a set of beliefs about what is right and wrong. If one is Christian then he/she has a set of beliefs about what is right and wrong that comes with the faith. Sure, one can see this morality as objective as a result. But Those who are not Christians also can have beliefs about what is right and wrong, which can be valid and based on rational and critical thought and hence objective in the same sense. The perfect example is Buddhist morality. Rather then coming from a divine being, it is based on this world experience of what is beneficial and reduces suffering. I think a convincing case, then, can be made that Buddhist morality is, in fact, more objective.
He just proved Craig by saying "Here's what I think about morality." or "Here's what I would do." Without a standard above mankind, morality is entirely subjective.
To this date, a creator or a "fairy in the sky" is wayyy more believable than a random mutation happening over and over again with 000000000000000000000000000x.1 or probably of that happening. Not only that but the fact that atheist believe that the world was created out of thin air lmao... Scratch that..not even thin air!
@@shreddedhominid1629 no you just blindly follow it with your bias theories lol. It is known that you believe the world came to be out of nothing.. as if nothing can create something. Good day.
@@yoshisaidit7250 only idiots believe that a random mutation with zero chances of happening created the perfection that we are as humans over and over and over and over again! Lmaoooo dumba55
seems that none of you Christians has a clue about what morality is and what objectivity means. WLC literally admitted a naturalistic case for objective morality. If morality is subjective - meaning that there is no objective morality at all, then simply complaining that morality is subjective is pointless. And most importantly - if you believe that morality derives from divine command theory - in that what God says is good, is good - then you don't believe in objective morality you belive in subjective morality. The concept of 'good and evil' is a theistic invention - a cloak that has smothered the origins and real nature of morality. This smothering has been so succesful that Christians blithely brag about their own moral values without ever considering that in fact it's an invention - an invention that when pressed, has absolutely no explanatory power. Christians claim that 'goodness' is an abstract property, yet cannot explain what it entails, other than to assert that it comports to 'God's nature'. But there are so many holes in that assertion - holes that Christians simply deny. Naturalistic paradigms concerning morality have rigorous explanations backed by logic and empirical evidence, wihle all Christians have is "because God says so". But Christians can't even show what God actually says, let alone piece together logical reasons for why he says it. And yet you guys have the gall to claim WLC 'destroyed' him.
The argument is illiterate. What does it matter when a god doesn't exist? *Most definitely you can't get something from a god that doesn't exist!* They try to say the universe is verified by the bible. *When It's Very Clear The Authors Had No Idea Of What The Universe Is Or How Large It as.* THERE'S NO OTHER PLANETS MENTIONED! Yet we see some fool say a priest CREATED the big bang. *Which Is Impossible To Be Created.*
Actually, the moral law itself is still objective coming from a source beyond the said "believer". Just because you believe that something is good, doesn't mean that the something or the goodness of that thing came from you originally. The "something" and the "goodness" thereof It's still EXTERNAL at the end of the day. In the Christian view being saved by grace through faith, Because of the grace, literally everything becomes completely objective at that point. even the fact that we have any desire to keep a certain law STILL comes from God.
Some serious fanatics here. I mean if you want to believe in God by all means do but don't deny the lack of logic or truth in it. Like any other cult religion is based on teachings and control there will never be any evidence of a god and if we focused on the natural beauty of the world and universe we live in then people won't find the need to look elsewhere for enlightenment
They actually leave me truly inspired to learn more about what the universe holds, even if there is no ultimate meaning that doesn't matter at all to me.
Not true . Craig did better in that debate. Hitch is a great intellect but I think he wasn't razor sharp that day maybe 1 too many in the elephant room.
Craig has thoroughly argued directly for the existence of God in many other debates, papers, books, etc. This specific question wasn't about that question though, so he was addressing the actual question he was asked.
@@nicholasriveness3202 The sense of moral obligation comes from our rather unique ability to reflect on our actions and understand it's consequences to others with empathy. With our understanding of the evolutionary process, that model makes sense. Where do you think we get morals from?
@@jamesedward3619 I know. I've listened to Craig in countless debates for the last 20 years. He's a good communicator, well educated, and confident, but all his arguments for the existence of a god of any sort are bad.
@@biggregg5 That's true to a point. It can't explain any moral obligation beyond specified groups, let alone underpin a concept of human rights more broadly. Some previous civilisations existed for many centuries, but their moral obligation never extended beyond certain limits and always favoured kith and kin. Further, when you try and use evolutionary morals to explain sacrificial service to groups that are not only well outside ones own group but requires personal loss or suffering, which we tend to hold in very high esteem, you get into a muddle of pop psych speculation. To Christians, morals are an objective truth about right conduct that God has revealed and we discover. Many of the moral codes we hold now were very counter intuitive when they were 1st expressed e.g love your enemies, forgive those who hurt you, all people are of equal worth and dignity, children and women have value beyond utility, taking the life of a stranger/ out group member is wrong. Many civilisations did not hold these as self evident truisms but were quite functional, prosperous materially and very creative.
He's a coward, plus he suffers greatly from narcissism, he's become his own god, notice how he searches for words but actually believes his theories are not only correct, but righteous in his own eyes. Poor soul...
The funny thing is thateven if morality were a utilitarian, herd derivative... where does the herd come from??? Because all I'm hearing is that morality is intrinsic and objective. Which means that all explicit and extrinsic manifestations of morality are either a) remedial of the intrinsic and objective, or b) subjective. A) would be divine origin and B) man's creation. Both could be happening; and this is my belief.
It's funny how someone as intelligent, convicted and well spoken as Craig can't come up with any evidence at all for the existence of god; and neither can anybody else.
@@wigs666 Creation needs a creator. A creator doesn't... His name means the self-existent one. He exists outside of this creation, outside of space and time. You live in it. You live on the Earth. His abode is the Heavens.
using a standard of evidence like the Brady Material Rule where the ruling was decided in Brady vs Maryland that if a certain material of evidence is relevant to a case then it's admissible. This is backed by Rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence which states " To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is." Making your accusation that the Bible is made up and not based on history conjecture. And under subsection 3 it states that one way this can be achieved is through expert witnesses, in this case historians and according to an article Smithsonian mag written on December of 2021 titled "An archeological dig reignites the debate over the old testament's historical accuracy" the Bible is in fact archeologically supported. More evidence to this fact is found in other articles such as an article from the independent written in August of 2017 titled " Bible passage describing burning of Jerusalem is historically accurate, find Archeologists" that takes place in the old testament. This by itself satisfies 901 it also satisfies another subsection of 901 which is subsection 8 which is in regards to what would be considered ancient documents or data compilation which has only 3 requirements. 1. Has to be at least 20 years old, 2 has to be found in a place it would likely be, and 3. Found in a condition that creates no suspicion about it's authenticity, the Dead sea scrolls which are the earliest known copies of the old testament that are confirmed to be the same old testament read today found in the Qumran caves satisfy's all 3 requirements. So if you want to claim my rational is circular reasoning then you have a serious problem because if that were true then why does it satisfy even the federal rules of evidence? Keep in mind these are based on case laws and their rulings in other words cases came up where a standard of authenticating documents came into question and this is what was decided and it's been the rule ever since. So if you have a problem with this fact then it's your problem not mine if you have an issue arguing according to any form of standard of evidence then you have no business debating anything about truth or religious people or anything for that matter.
“Professing to be wise, they became fools,”
Romans 1:22
There is some irony in posting that.
Must be why Christians are so happy with not knowing anything.
That's exactly what I would say if I was a con man trying to convince people that everybody that said I was a con man was a fool
@@darkeen42 👌
Athiests got an answer for anything sometimes it changes over time others are just nonsense because they know deep down they are condemned.
For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
"And from now on, I will rule over a bunch of gullible morons."
What fiction book is that from?? Peter Pan??
@@gdobie1west988 can you know truth?
@@gdobie1west988 spoken like you already know the Truth, as if you can willing dictate when your own body will stop ceasing... You have no control when you're hungry but are subjugated by something higher than your mind .. which lets you know when to eat sleep drink and live another Day...
@@gdobie1west988 someone is really frustrated.. 🤣sleep it off dear.. Maybe it might work
I have never heard Peter Atkins in a debate where he let the other side speak without interrupting them.
Yeah, that was very irritating.
I wonder why
Listening to Atkins try and explain morality without God was pure torture.
If you need a deity to give you rules on morals you have no clue. You realise man created god so everything your God says is actually man right? so morals come from man not god you halfwit
You haven't prove God exist yet either.
Transcendental argument is proof of His existence. You are proving He exists now by asking for evidence.
He didn't do the best job but he is correct. Human morality is subjective. Human morality objectively helps humans to prosper. However human prosperity is not objectively good. Think of all the harm to other life forms and the planet that human prosperity causes. This is simple because human prosperity is objectively bad for other things what we consider good is clearly subjective.
@@187mako1977 What are you reading, teach me your ways
One thing I can always count on when I see Peter Atkins struggle to make a coherent, logically consistent point in any of his debates is a reaffirmation of my faith.
Eh, ok if that makes you feel more connected to your god. I don't become more of an Atheist because I think WLC is a belkend. He's just a bellend.
@@tobythedog3606 It was a facetious comment, take it or leave it.
@@sdude456 Great. I've taken it and now I've left it! Easy.
@@tobythedog3606 There ya go lol
@@tobythedog3606 confidence in the worldview is what is mentioned lol, crazy that had to be pointed out. When the atheist worldview is shown to be incoherent again, i can vouch it does strengthen the non atheist resolve.
He wasn't destroyed by WLC. He was destroyed by his desire to be perceived as smart in the absence of any effort required for it.
Did you see that video with Jordan Peterson speaking with John Anderson today? Peterson was that same point about Justin Trudeau.
*made that same point
@@oldglstuf I didn't see it but I listen to Jordan Peterson a lot(especially his debates) and I like how articulate he is and I believe that when you admire someone so much, you begin to sort of model yourself after him.
He "destroyed" himself. But WLC did not get in his way and even guided him along 😂🤣🤔
@@InfoArtistJKatTheGoodInfoCafe Exactly 😂
He took all that time to essentially say he believes in utilitarianism.
They've got an Atheist Hotline.
They call it Nobody Answers.
I've yet to meet an atheist who understands that his or her unsubstantiated opinion is logically worthless to humanity.
I fixed your comment....
_I've yet to meet an _*_theist_*_ who understands that his or her unsubstantiated opinion is logically worthless to humanity_
you are welcome...
@@thedude0000 can you elaborate? I'm curious
Sounds like you need a more diverse group of friends
I’ve yet to met a Christian who’s ever proved their god exists. Except in their brainwashed heads that’s worthless to reality.
I love how WLC ended with "that is what you think?"...I don't think Atkins got it, but I think the audience did! :)
Atkins clearly doesn't get anything outside of his own field.
Atkins is too far up his own @®$€ to even realise what he's eating on his own plate, let alone contemplate WLC arguments, after breakfast.
I did.
Trying to moralize without a source for morals is a trainwreck waiting to happen
How many hundreds of years have failed Christian rule do you need to learn about before you have to admit the tomorrow code of the Bible is absolutely disgusting
Not if you are intelligent.
What is your source for morals?
@@XabierRey morality comes from whether your actions are harmful or beneficial to others it's really simple
Solve the Euthrpro Dilemma, pls. Theists have had several thousands years.
The "morality that led to stability," which is cited by the atheist, came about through the institution of the Church. The pre-Christian acceptance of familial and clan slaughter was the norm.
Are you saying that people born before the invention of Christianity were amoral. Really? And are you actually saying Christianity hasn’t slaughtered countless people?
The 1400 and 1500's history would PROVE Otherwise
But then there was Languedoc, which I'm not sure was the exception.
There was always an in group morality that strongly differed from the out group morality.
The question of how many people are part of your in-group depends on the setup of the society not on religion.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 I don't accept situational ethics. The morality of the world when the Apostles preached was unacceptable to the Church and it was to a great degree changed for the better.
I just love it when people aren't allowed to get away with these non-answers.
You mean like when Atheists ask why god allows bad things to happen and theists say *"God works in mysterious ways?"* 🙄 🙄 🙄
Free will bro. We have a choice. It's not God allowing bad things to happen its people choosing to do bad things
@@sharidandan4172 Oh really? What about cancer, dementia, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, heart attack, stroke, supranuclear palsy, multiple system atrophy, and organ (heart, lung, kidney or liver) failures.? Did we come up with them? Or how about Earthquakes, Volcanos, Tornados, andTsunamis? Did God not create these things? Need I go on *BRO?!*
@@sharidandan4172 Your silence says it all.
@@robertmcelwaine7024 "If God exists, then why bad things happen???"
**soyjak png**
Just can never admit that they have no foundation for morality. They want it to be so bad, but they just stammer around making excuses. It’s the best they can do.
@Guy Ledouche Oh, I do have one. The intelligent designer of everything that exists created morality. And the best you can do is "I don't know".
@Guy Ledouche There is nothing but valid reasoning for intelligent design. You just don't accept the evidence, that's all.
@@CharlieJulietSierra Intelligent Design as a scientific concept was disproved in 2005. It's survived only as a philosophical argument.
Species Speciate That is a silly statement and totally false🤣
@@CharlieJulietSierra Nope. ID was refuted by scientists and then further disproved in a court of law during the Kitzmiller vs Dover case. The final nail in its coffin was when its biggest proponent, Michael Behe, admitted under cross examination that there is no evidence for it and it doesn't count as a scientific theory.
The reason it's not science is because it's not based on verifiable evidence, it doesn't explain related observations with any measurable degree of accuracy, it posits no laws, it posits no mechanism, it's untestable, and unfalsifiable. As such it failed to meet the minimum criteria of science, and it is nothing but a philosophical argument akin to the teleological argument.
“If I were to summarize my own modus operandi, I would say, I hold the distinctive morality I hold because I was raised in a Christian society. If I were raised in a Muslim society, I would believe it is appropriate to drop off hands for stealing. Neither is right and neither is wrong. I simply find one to be particularly distasteful”
And then one can ask: Is distasteful for you because of what?
Either God made the universe
Or
Chance made the universe
The universe is ordered so chance is out
I made you, just believe it 😂
Atkins was troubled. How on earth can such a learned man of Chemistry get so imprisoned by his own thinking? all it demonstrates is that education forces you to remember information without really asking you to think what is going on in the bigger picture. God and education enables knowledge to have perspective.
What god?
@@rf7477 Atkins is correct though. Human morality is subjective. The mistake I see being made is assuming that if something is objectively good for humans than it is objectively good which is not the case. Human prosperity by default is bad for other things. Think of all the damage to other forms of life that comes from human prosperity. You're not really looking at the bigger picture when your frame of reference is only considering what's good for humans.
@@187mako1977 Home sapiens is a quite destructive species. Many of us are aware of it now. If we don't learn self regulation we might very well cause our own demise. That is the bigger picture. The invention of gods and all the associated superstitions with a heavenly payout have done nothing except contribute to destructive behaviour. Many "christians" even yearn for an "end of times" and the final destruction of the world. It's as if heaven is more important than Earth. A foolish idea.
Atkins is correct, he is just not the best at debating.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 to KNOW he is the best is to know the truth of what they are debating. what WAS Atkins trying to say?
Atkins is rude, angry and not fit to discuss metaphysics or deep philosophical ideas.
WLC believes in mythology and doesn't deserve to be on the same stage as a scientist when we discuss the universe lmfao.
Atkins position is illogical and the only option left for him was to interrupt and not allow Craig to make his points. It is unfortunate that nothing blinds a man like wilful blindness.
And religious fanatics aren't rude, arrogant or condescending at all.
No matter what side you take OBJECTIVELY his reaction to that was funny
Which of the following would you least trust if you had to trust a complete stranger with your cash:
#1 A devout Christian (answerable to God)
#2 A devout Buddhist (answerable to karma)
#3 An atheist who believes in no (ultimate) accountability
Insufficient data to make a decision. But I ain't giving money to Kent Hovind.
It's better to trust a law-abiding stranger than a law-hating stranger.
No one is righteous, no, not even one.
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
The answer is, you can't trust any of them.
But the one who thinks there are no moral consequences before God?
He doesn't know or follow God's commandments?
Can you trust him?
Only if you test him, communicate with him, and demonstrate your own intention making an impression upon him.
Given time to think and answer on what's right for him to do, an atheist will reach for high morals. He will realize it's the point.
He will adopt God's policies, but refuse to give God credit for having them written.
He will deny there is God by definition. To him, there's no god but himself. He wants to be seen by you doing the very thing God would have him do.
Now can you trust him?
Try it with small amounts at first.
He will adjust as things go along. He may try to put it back on you that if he uses your cash on a given day, you should have handled your own affair and your own money.
He is an individual and the world must revolve around his opinion.
So, be careful.
Another one on the list may say he made a mistake, used your cash, and will pay it back later.
Still another will say you will feel better if you are relieved of that burden, when you have freed yourself of these desires of yours, you are another step closer to enlightenment.
Where's your money though?
Joe Biden gasoline and
It's the cost of every inflated thing going up.
He saved you the trouble and ran your errand you would make later. One man makes the trip once for the group. Do you want some of the food and drink he bought?
We all rationalize.
Maybe you can assert yourself beforehand with the atheist and trust him?
Try it.
When the one who admitted his mistake and asked you to trust and wait, has some money come in of his own?
You need to be the one who kept track of the amount perhaps, but he knows and will pay your way. If he forgets?
Nudge him a little.
Your turn to buy.
You used the money you were holding of mine.
At the end of the day, it depends on the man. Not the belief system.
I think.
Put your money in the bank where grandma always told you.
Or, invest it to something you trust and have good reason to trust. You do have to run a good race to get ahead of inflation.
But all three could be good friends in the list.
A fool and his money can measure.
But don't be so covetous that you lose those friends you are trying to make.
Be communicative and assertive.
You assume that a theist is likely to be more moral this is not only false its DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. You know that there have been many studies to assess the religiosity of societies in comparison with their number of murders ,rapes, thefts, ,abortions , drug use , single parents, even wealth and health
America dispite being one of the most christian countries in the world has the HIGHEST murder rate per capita anywhere in the world 🤔🤔🤔
it also has amongst the worst results in many of the above categories.
Yet those we regard as the most atheistic secular ( the Scandinavian, sweden ect) score much much better and are amongst the best in those same categories. Hmmm.🤔🤔🤔
For example one of many ........
*"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies"*
@@PramodKumar-gy8lb But that assumes that you're a good decision maker. But evidentially you offer points of information that you're not - because you say Kent Hovind is a devout Christian. Is he?
What makes one devout?
Atkins shoots himself in the foot when he admits that other societies do things differently, because he has made what is good for society his standard for morality. But if different societies have different standards, and there is not objective moral truths by which anyone society can be judged, then no one society has the right to say it is more moral than another. So when Atkins says he doesn't like people getting their hands cut off, that's really just his personal preference, nothing more.
Not if you base your moral standard on well-being. Then it’s pretty easy to see that firstly, stealing from others goes against well-being, and secondly, cutting off their hands also goes against well-being. It’s really not difficult at all.
@@pomegranatepip2482 do you really believe different people and cultures agree on what “well-being” means for everyone? The Nazis believed that their well-being would be enhanced by killing Jews.
@@pomegranatepip2482
so what do you propose
pat thieves on the head
and say no no ???
😁
of course I opose all barbarity
@@pomegranatepip2482
I can easy imagine situations that this something based on well being is quite quickly going under the bus
@@pomegranatepip2482the well-being of who? I base my morality on the well-being of myself what's to stop me from robbing and killing in order to improve my well-being? If a society bases their well-being on that of the group what's to say that cutting off the hands of those who rob from the group is not an appropriate response?
When Craig gets that right thumb cocked, you know someone is about to get dropped.
They're talking as if this was the first time these arguments were made..
He called him self a pig 😆
Do not cast your pearls before swine lest they should turn and rend you.
What you sound like when you are your own god.
Yes, by presenting your opinion about which morals are objective and arguing on behalf of god, as if you were the god himself.
It’s not his opinion. They are objective as old as written history
Here is a question for everyone: where would you rather live, the USA or Saudi Arabia and why?
Nice video - been watching your yt on off for years - always wanted to ask - what’s your boxing record and if you still fight?
That's what you "think" ahh ha ha. The look on his face. Gold.
"I don't know where I heard this, but you can't kill your neighbor - you have to love your neighbor"
Hint: that's the moral that emerged from evolution and later made it into religion.
@@adayah2933 when?
@@adayah2933
Morals arising from evolution?
There is no scientific evidence that proves that lol
Evolution speaks nothing about morals
If anything, dropping your morals would increase your evolutionary fitness
Having morality contradicts the evolutionary principles
@@adayah2933ah yes, evolution, a theory you’ve never read yet profess to believe while criticizing others who believe in a book which they have read. Some perspective is needed here
"Objective"
I don't that means what he thinks that means.
“I think they are a nasty bunch” XD
I really believe people still invite Atkins to these debates just because it's funny to see him internally struggle with his moral dilema.
Has anyone ever seen William Lane Craig in the same room with David Lee Roth?
You nailed it. I see what you mean.
Lmao at the end.🤣🤣🤣
Bill Craig: "That's what you think."
Atkins: "Yeah"
And if we asked what craig thought he would say "no, my opinions are facts without evidence" because that's all he brings to the table. A PDH on theology aka mythology vs a scientist and you go with the myths. Hilarious!
@@MrTheclevercat What is a myth?
@@MrTheclevercat you might want to learn how to spell before trying to condescend. Just some advice.
@@browserboy1984 You might want to learn to start sentences with capital letters before you try to condescend. LOL
@@MrTheclevercat I was speaking directly to you, which could have been accompanied by a comma following your name, but RUclips would have automatically put a space in front of the comma, rendering the sentence grammatically incorrect.
Do you have any more garbage-tier opinions to share, or are you just going to give some more views to Christian apologists like a good little free thinker?
If he would interfere with Hitler but would not cut off the hand of a thief in Saudi Arabia because he doesn't want to "interfere with the aspirations of another human being," I'd be interested to know where (exactly) he draws the line on ethical "interference in the aspirations of another human being...." He would trip over himself, explaining his moral high ground.
Atkins has gone WAY over his 15 minutes.
time to eliminate him....
Can we change the name evolution in Evilution?
Why would any reasonable person?
People who deny evolution are yet to postulate how evolution wouldn't occur knowing what we know. We observe evolution has happened so you need to explain how it only appears to be that way to everyone educated. You are going to fail miserably at this by the way.
What's evil about genetic change in populations of plants and animals?
Evolution was proven before you were born, BTW.
praise the only true living LORD and GOD bless you all glory be to the HOLY TRINITY forever and ever amen 💖✝️✝️✝️
Why would a god need your praise and worship? What would it gain from that?
@@MrTheclevercatto satisfy his ego, that's what it is.
Where was the destroyed part?
"Professors" stumble into these debates, totally unprepared, thinking it's gonna be a cake walk.
WLC: "That's what you think? "
Atkins: "yeah" 😂😂
Good on you William Lane Craig - remaining calm, courteous and patient - and more knowledgeable!
Great conversation, fully agree with Lane Craig. I would mention that the little quips that were put in the discussion were a distraction to me and I would have preferred not seeing them. But that’s just me. Have a good day.
You know youre far off when youre epic comeback is to accuse the other person of saying what he thinks.
Atheists forget all the great scientists were religious, from Newton to Einstein. Plus, the advise in the Bible is sound, l recommend the book "none of these illnesses"
Theists forget that ppl were killed for not being religious, and still are today.
All of the advice in the Bible?
Einstein religious? No. And as for Newton, he was a theist but denied the divinity of Christ and didn't accept the doctrine of the Trinity so I suppose he will burn in hell for all eternity.
People argue evolution without taking a fresh look at the evidence, the more we study nature, the more we know about DNA the harder it becomes to say evolution is what happened here. Look it up! Look at the recent discoveries, don't take my word for it. Darwin was also a known racist and had zero knowledge of microbiology but if evolution excuses you to do whatever you like then IT'S PERFECT.
Did god make humans?
Also, Darwin's uncle Erasmus thought up the foundation of the theory, and Charles just added to it. The fact that Erasmus Darwin was a 33rd degree Freemason may or may not be relevant.
_"look it up"_ you say 😂🤣🤣🤣 you clearly have no idea what evolution even is never mind DNA .
Now I could spend hours explaining the vast swaths of evidence regarding DNA and how it fits perfectly with Darwins model ( dispite him having "zero knowledge of microbiology" ) but I fear it would go so far over your head you would need a step ladder. So instead let's see if your a hypocrite shall we 😜
You're sceptical with regards to science and demand high standards of evidence. Thats ok infact I'm very much in favour of that myself.
But do you apply those same evidentiary standards and levels of skepticism with regards to your religious beliefs ???
The bible makes claims of a 10,00 year old earth that suffered a global flood a mere few thousand years ago. A talking snakes & donkeys, tribes of giants , witches, Angel's, zombies , magic, all overseen by an invisible being.
So I look forward to seeing your *observable, repeatable , falsefiable, predictable evidence* to support those beliefs.
Now you also believe that the origins of man lie in a mud figurine becoming a living breathing man and a rib becoming a woman 🤣😅🤣😅
So once again present the "verifiable empirical evidence that supports this.
Infact let's have a laugh that's my next question to you, just hold on a sec while I put a creatard dunce hat on 😂😂
Ok let's go
How does a Rib become a woman?
Do you have examples of any transitional fossils from said rib to woman.?
If ribs can turn into women then why are there still ribs around ?
Why do we not have examples of the RIB KIND turning into cat or dog kinds?
How do you explain the second law of thermodynamics in regard to ribs, if we find less entropy In women ?
Are ribs not irreducibly complex?
Isn't it true that ribvolution is just a THEORY not a fact?
If women are really ribs then why aren't they covered in barbecue sauce?
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I predictict now that you won't even attempt to answer any of my questions instead you will engage in evasion, obfuscation, misdirection. and the good old "tu quoque fallacy " ( or hypocrisy fallacy ) which typically use to deflects criticism away from yourself or your position by accusing others of the same problem or something comparable. It's often used to distract from the issue.
Prove me wrong I dare you 😜
Evolution stands firmly on 160 years of scientific Theory and the Scientific Method. Approximately 20 other feilds of science firmly support it.
I dont see the destruction, nor do i see where craig shows the morals can only come from a supernatural source.
Because it stands to logic and reason that a celestial wizard shook the universe out of his sleeve (sigh)
How are these "DESTROYED" videos still being made unironically in 2022
Atheists make these videos all the time and get upset when there's some done about them. That's why the unloader gave it that title.
Funny thing is that you don't need to be religious to automatically accept most of Christian rules as normal and logical........
Like the one about stoning gays? Or stoning unruly children? Or stoning witches? Or stoning whatever else? No thanks, too much stoning for me. The rule about no murder though, they got that one right I think... as did every other religion, which bolsters the idea that morality arises from empathy, not religion.
@@piecrumbs9951 Right... Talking about the old testament aye? Try reading the new testament and understand better before you come here and spout nonsense. I am not much of a Christian, but if you want to argue against it, how about you become knowledgable first before making a fool out of yourself?
@@chromecobalt I'm aware of the new testament. Admittedly, my knowledge on either piece of scripture is limited; but from what very little information I've gathered, I've come under the impression that the new testament is a fulfillment of the old. Jesus says in Matthew "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Perhaps I am misinterpretting this as Jesus validating old testament laws, fine. There are plenty of atrocious morals in the new as well, like the notion that it is just to sacrifice an innocent person to vindicate the guilty, or to punish non-believers with eternal torment.
@@piecrumbs9951let a human tell God what is just...
@@piecrumbs9951you are misrepresenting the text, and ignoring the context, which is extremely important. These laws were for a specific time, place, and people. You mentioned an 'unruly child', which isn't remotely what is described. It was a young adult, not some preteen or younger. They are so out of control as to literally endanger the family, as well as the entire camp. Not only are they calcitrant, they are described as a glutton and a drunk. The parents have exhausted every means of discipline, but they just become more defiant. He/ she is brought before the court, and witnesses are required. It's like situations where children's behavior is exponentially extreme in modern times, that parents recognize the seriousness of the behavior and its potential harm towards others. You've heard about parents who recognized deviant behavior, and failed to report it to authorities, and soon after, you are reading about another school shooting..one that could have been prevented had they done their duty to others. All o this is during the time of the Exodus, which was during formation of the Jewish community, and eventually them fulfilling their purpose of bringing the Messiah, the Savior of the world, as the means of reconciliation between God Aman. There's never been anything more sacred, and hol, so abhorrent, deviant, seriously egregious sin...DELIBERATE SIN..had to be severely punished. If you don't understand the condition of the fallen nature of humanity, and it's implications, you will never understand why these issues had to be dealt with...also only after a literal trial, and irrefutable proof of persistent, repeated deliberate, defiant sin...resulting in serious consequences, and to preserve the integrity of the entire nation, with its holy other calling and purpose. Just because you, me, or anyone else doesn't grasp the seriousness of the situation, that doesn't minimize it, or evaporate the drastic nature of the evil potential that was being cut out...like removing a cancerous leg to preserve the health and life of a human being. How much sense would it make to reason that removing a leg, cuttiing it off, and inflicting the obvious painful suffering involved, if it was for no apparent reason...then you are made aware that the person is still alive BECAUSE the leg, with itsvcancer was removed...especially if the 'leg' was fully conscious that what it had done caused the cancer, and adamantly, deliberately, defiantly, flippantly persisted in what he fully realized was deadly...not only to himself, but others...anyway?
Bill is obsessed with the Big Bang while ignoring the infinite space around it.
That was painful trying to understand ol mate.
Let me simplify it for you then. Human morality objectively helps humans to prosper. However human prosperity is not objectively good. Think of all the harm to other life forms and the planet that human prosperity causes. This is simple because human prosperity is objectively bad for other things what we consider good is clearly subjective.
The question still stands, can you provide any proof that this god of yours is actually real?
Phil, the real proof of this God is the existence of the human race including you and I. One thing that is not debatable is that "Chance" does not have life and cannot give life. The Person that gave life to all living things including the human race is the One we call God.
Anyone who created himself or can explain to us how all living things came into existence without invoking the position that "Chance" created us all which can only be believed by someone who has lost touch with reality.
Two options to select from:
#1. Supernatural Being called GOD created the Heaven and the Earth and all in them. Humans create and the creator of human beings surely can only be a greater creator.
#2. Chance created all things including human beings and all living and non-living things. Chance does not have life and therefore cannot give life.
Job 12:10 "In his (God) hand is the life of every creature and the breadth of all mankind."
God put expiry date on all living things just the way humans put expiry date on products.
That option #1 is what is logical and coherent is not in doubt.
A man on the 10th floor of a building may like that gravity does not exist. However, if he jumps down, gravity will not hesitate to act normally. When the owner of breadth giving to all humans request for it from each of us one-by-one, it will become plain to everyone that he who did not create himself is answerable to his Creator.
If a man is sincerely wrong, he will be open to learning and finding out the truth. However, when a man is wilfully wrong, there is no hope for such a person. Jesus Christ saves and if you let him He will give you a brand new life that you have been longing for with peace and rest unspeakable. Matthew 11:28
All the best!
If you seek, you will find. If you ask, you will receive. If you knock, the door will be opened to you. For everyone who seeks, finds. Everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who knocks has the door opened for them. The evidence is abundant if your attitude is correct, and your intent is sincere.
@J B Wrong. The scientific consensus is that the universe had no beginning and is in some sense eternal.
Plus there are myriad examples of new things that had no creator. New species have evolved in your own lifetime.
@J B Based on the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only change states.
Hence the reason why scientists say the energy was always there. Which also means the universe had no defined beginning.
@J B Your intuition means nothing when it comes to physics. If the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is anything to go by it means that energy is eternal. You could try to disprove it, but you don't stand much of a chance. I'm not saying that to provoke you, I'm saying it because you're not a professional cosmologist, astronomer or astrophysicist.
These atheist scientists are very intelligent people and very good at that they do, but I think one of their problems is they don’t think they need to understand the philosophical issues very well to debate people like Craig, which gets them into trouble. And then the atheist philosophers who do specialize in religion and know everything Craig does and more (Oppy, Draper, Smith, etc.) aren’t very good debaters.
Don’t think their debating skills is the issue
Okay, so if you don’t think that philosophers like Oppy, Draper, and Smith have debating problems then I’m curious what your objections are to their arguments? Could you maybe outline an argument unique to one of those three names and provide a criticism?
@@michaelx5070 philosophy isnt evidence for anything.
Debating someone like wlc is pointless, because no matter how much he is proven to be wrong, he will still spout the same bullshlt, because it makes peoples brain stop working, and money fall out of their pockets.
Craig doesn't understand philosophical issues at all.
William Lane Craig has been made fun of all over the internet for his basic regurgitation of apologist arguments. If you think he is in any way saying something profound about philosophy (or anything for that matter) you need to go back to grade school.
No retort required.
Arguing that morality evolved from nothing is to stand upon the statement that morality's foundation is nothing.
Fascinating watching people convince themselves that they're witnessing some kind of "gotcha" when all they've done is reiterate their own dogmatic insistence that if a moral code doesn't have an absolute basis then there is no basis at all for it or any imperative to live by it. Such mental inflexibility being paraded with such pride!
I find it funny how atheists claim to love science, but according to them, their imagined 'big bang' is what "created" all of us! Yet we see order all around us, and in us, so that is contradictory unto itself. Explosions do not create order. They create disorder. Light off 10 sticks of dynamite under a computer. Not one time will all of the pieces ever come back down into one unit again, no matter how many times you tried that. Science proves that explosions create disorder, not order, so the "big bang" (explosion) supposedly creating order in our cells is contrary to actual scientific observation. Do atheists care? No. Because the big bang is the only way they think can explain away this universe existing without God. They just ignore how blatantly unscientific and illogical that explanation is. Ignorance is bliss. 😉
What grounding basis do you lay your moral assumptions on? In other words, why do you (likely) assume that murder is wrong? Or that theft of your neighbor's belongings is wrong? Or, perhaps, why your neighbor sleeping with your wife is wrong?
These three social mores, enshrined in the very laws of our land, were set in stone ~1450 B.C.E.
If you do hold those three statements to be true, one might venture to say that the 10 Commandments forms the basis of your moral code, then. Certainly it does mine. But, in my case, what forms the basis of the 10 Commandments upon which I, personally, hinge my sense of objective morality? That would be the law *giver,* who, it is written, goes by the name YHWH.
This is what is called setting an *objective standard* for morality. It is rigid because objectivity is often rigid. It doesn't declare what to *do* if someone breaks one of these moral commands, just that it is intrinsically *wrong to* break one of them. So, if you alternatively derived 7/10 of these moral laws independently, I am inclined to ask from where, and on what basis does your nearly-identical moral code stand?
Hammurabi hinged his laws, written centuries earlier, on *his* authority as king of Babylon. The Hebrews hinged their laws on the authority of God in the Highest, YHWH. Which set of moral codes is predominately followed by the citizenry of this world today, however? Not Hammurabi's, that's for sure.
So, to make a long lecture short, what do you base your self-admittedly flexible objective moral code on if not the transcendent/divine, and then, what is this code which, in all probability, will be strikingly familiar to the 10 Commandments (though, by all means, prove my preconceptions wrong)?
I am genuinely curious to read your response.
So...morality is relative...which means killing a baby is no different morally than loving one. Even the natives of Borneo know that murder is a moral issue....
@@ChristAliveForevermore There are actually 613 commandments. Why do you only cite 10?
@@MojoHaiku
Even the 10 commandments are wrong. lol
1: worship only me
2: no drawing pictures of me (hmm, where have I heard that before?)
3: dont use my name as a cruse word god damnit
4: no worky on -saturday- sunday
5: honor your parents even when I tell them to sacrifice you to me
6: no killing, unless you use my name to do it
7: no sex outside of marriage, unless you have a concubine or sumthin
8: no stealing, even if its a matter of life n death
9: no lying, unless your spreading the lies of the bible
10: dont want what other ppl have. like a car, or a job, or money
Why is William Lane Craig wasting his time with someone who doesn't understand that his opinion and social majority are not a rational foundation for morality? This guy doesn't seem to have and understanding deeper than a typical college sophomores with respect to justifying his moral paradigm. Also what is the deal with all the silly interpolated memes and videos? That kind of dumbs the whole thing down.
That's not what he said. He was explaining how it's objectively better for human flourishing to behave a certain way. You and WLC seem to struggle with that simple concept. If you need a book to tell you that killing is wrong then you should be locked up
@@nakkadu for something to be objective, it has to have an external standard. This guy saying that flourishing is objectively better is based on, what? His opinion, majority opinion? What? He has no foundation on which to base his claim of objectivity. It is 100% subjective as a result. Oh and he may have been using the supposition that flourishing is good and defending his position but without explaining why that is the case, his defense falls apart. You claim that he was explaining how flourishing is better but he didn't do that at all, he simply made the claim and left it there. You seem to struggle with that simple concept.
@@nakkadu your statement that, if you need a book to tell you that murder is wrong, you should be locked up, is one of the most asinine things I have ever seen. Are you basing that on your feelings? Are you basing it on the fact that you are living on the Christian fumes of a postmodern world? You atheists who assume a modified judeo-christian ethic as a matter of course are intellectually dishonest with your atheism. Real atheism ends in nihilistic hopelessness as everyone knows. Be honest with yourself when saying that there is an objective standard, that you have no objective yardstick to appeal to.
@@jessedphillips He explained what it was based on, not on his opinion or majority opinion. Listen to what he said if you want to discuss it.
@@nakkadu He appeals to the fact that, "What has emerged through evolution is a stable society when, on the whole, you don't kill your neighbor [...]."
He appeals to mores and a complex interactive society but it didn't say why that is good. Flourishing is good because it's good? He's a relativist. Can you not follow the argument?
Then he says that he didn't want to intrude or quench aspirations and that, on the whole, it's good not to intrude on the lives of others but didn't have any reason to say why it's good. You can't say that something is good because it is good. That's a very simple and easy to follow tautology.
I listened to what he said and he did not describe the objective nature of his position at all.
You can replace any state of affairs, events, or nature of being that he says is good with any other and the rationale will be identical. He acts like what he says is true simply by virtue of him having stated it. This is like high school logic class.
Please provide the minute and second marker for where he states explicitly the justification for his claim that flourishing is objectively good. I don't deny that flourishing is good; however, I deny that he has any justification to make such a positive claim.
That would be the most terrifying torture in Hell to endlessly listen to Atkins.
William Craig looks like David Lee Roth
Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.
There is no such thing as SIN only moral and immoral actions. The percieved whims of your imaginary friend are irrelevant.
@@trumpbellend6717 Anger doesn't equal intelligence.
You don't know that if he existed he said anything,....bout its in your repugnant book...
He destroyed himself with the contradictions.
At some point it is foolish to engage.
And once again the video title and the actual footage are as different as night and day.
What a nice waste of 4 minutes of my life, was expecting some type of enlightenment from the debate because of the title.
A good debate goes beyond ego, which these two are way above their heads on. Didn't hear anything about the Bible nor did I hear anything scientific.
The point was obviously lost on you
@@AJTramberg on me to. No one destroyed no one.
@@ta3p-theannex3project84 Yes, Atkins was responding on the level of a toddler. On the question of the existence of objectove moral values, he responds as if completely not understanding the debate. Objective moral values TRANSCEND our own "opinions" of right and wrong. He cant explain why Hitler was OBLECTIVELY wrong without invoking an ultimate law giver. Instead he says Hitler was evil because "he thinks so"! 😄. If only our own opinions constitute whats right and wrong, then evil doesnt actually exist, its just a mental/cultural construct. This is a philosophy debate. Not a science or religion debate.
@@AJTramberg Bingo. Just by him using the words “I think” to describe something is evil means he is using a subjective analysis. Objective analysis does not require a personal opinion statement.
I’m a bit unqualified to listen to either side.
That's honest. Same for me.
Turn this off and watch a N. D. Experience instead of this.
For perspective, we have to remember that these are the same people that think men can become pregnant
Really?
Atheists have nothing to do with Left wing ideology. Atheists simply don't believe in God. Their political beliefs, gender, occupations, place of residence and numerous other things are as varied as you can get.
Why did thug glasses go on the dude on the right? Dude in the middle did all the heavy lifting...
There's objective in the ontological sense and objective in the epistemological sense. Morality is ontologically subjective (it does not exist outside of beings to think it up) and epistemologically objective (or, at least, inter-subjective). And, as we know that truth is not dependent upon any magic space pixie (for that would make truth subjective!), it's clear that morality does not require any magic space pixie.
Wow--that took less time to destroy WLC than it took WLC to respond to the person. Also: Kalam is nothing but Anselm (as Kant showed that all cosmological arguments are just the ontological argument in disguise), and since we know that Anselm is garbage--so is Kalam.
Strawman argument. You assume a priori that God doesn’t exist and mischaracterise what Christian’s believe about Him. To Christians, God is the foundation of reality itself and both outside of and intimately involved in His creation.
@@joelvonthrum8658 "A priori" doesn't mean what you think it means. It means "independent of examination"; you think it means "Dismiss beforehand". You're simply wrong.
And I don't mischaracterize anything; the christian god is a magic space pixie.
@@BAAWAKnight that’s one definition - another is ‘formed or conceived beforehand’ (Miriam Webster). And no - Christians don’t see God as a ‘magic space pixie’. That’s a strawman.
@@joelvonthrum8658 No, that's not the definition, and yes, christians do see god as a magic space pixie; you just don't like to admit it. So: no strawman.
@@BAAWAKnight insisting on definitions you prefer doesn’t validate them. My definition of ‘a priori’ is a valid one according to a dictionary. However, yours is also a valid definition as well.
You are trying to tell me what I believe, and what no other Christian believes, which is disingenuous. Neither you or I believe in the God you describe.
WLC’s response should have been “why?” And “who says?”. Then show him who says. Without God and his Christ it doesn’t matter.
Yes the questions should be "why?" If atheism were true, I mean actually true, and we all 'emerged' by accident from inanimate materials, with no purpose or reason to exist in the universe, then there would of course be zero reason to survive. Why would an "evolved" creature even have it coded in their DNA to try to reproduce or survive? But let's say that somehow it did. Ok then, let's survive! Let's kill anyone and anything that gets in our way.. because why not? Who is to say that's wrong? Well, nobody, if atheism were true. Oh, but it's better to evolve a moral code so we can all get along and survive. But why? Just kill them all, it doesn't matter. Even the atheists will tell you, that ultimately the earth and the universe will end, that there is no purpose or reason or design for it. So ultimately, there is no reason to even bother trying to survive, or defining good and evil, or anything at all! One last thing they didn't mention; without God, the immaterial things that do exist would not exist in any capacity whatsoever, such as Love, Beauty, Art, and Music. These things can not exist in a purely materialistic, accidental universe with no purpose (and neither can good and evil!)
I honestly can't even imagine how miserable it must be to live a life without God!
Says who?
Actually, without a supposed God it’s more important to have morality.
As a biological entity, a group mammal my instincts are that I want to live, peaceful and safe.This life is all I have.
Logically Christians don’t, they just want to die to go to a better place: “heaven”. So they welcome violence in hopes to “transition”…
so we've gotten to the point of making fun of an old guy for stuttering
0:03 these pastas 🍝
Science reinforces my belief in God
Then you cant science
@@yoshisaidit7250 Why can't you have science and God?
@@ljrules3864 (crickets)
@@yoshisaidit7250 You have no authority over science.
@@henryfrancis9533 lol, I dont need authority over science to know yall are wrong.
I’m a Christian, but i seriously don’t see how the British professor was destroyed lol. I do see how his argument collapsed on itself but it doesn’t make Craig a savage debater. He didn’t really do anything 😂. Unless it’s just really late and I’m out of it
Well it was just his remark at the end when it collapsed.
It's like watching someone saying my house of straw is strong and then a gust blows it over, then WLC come over and says I told you.
WLC destroyed him by letting Atkins dig his own hole, then refused to help him out, metaphorically speaking.
Sun Tzu has a quote about that.
You're not a Christian you're just a cultural Christian .
He led Peter into saying things that contradicted his own argument. He highlighted it so subtly that Peter didn't even catch it, but the more intelligent in the audience did. Hence the chuckles. It was brilliant.
And Neville Chamberlain did not object to Hitler or draw the line there. This guy does draw the line at Hitler. So which Brit should be believed as having the supreme moral character?
Thinking themselves to be wise, they became fools
Yes, religionists are like that.
I must have missed the part where he was DESTROYED. He said it was wrong for religious leaders to tell people to stop taking potentially life saving medicine.
He was destroyed on that very point, not because Craig believes it's good for religious leaders to convince their congregations to stop taking medicine, but because Craig is the only one of the two men with a philosophical foundation from which to objectively assess and draw conclusions about the rectitude of moral actions. Atkins, as an atheist, doesn't have a means by which he can say whether something is objectively right or wrong in any universal sense. As such, his claim that "it is wrong for religious leaders to tell people to stop taking potentially life saving medicine" is fundamentally baseless, according to the natural consequences of his own world view.
@@jamesedward3619 Your reply is ironically laughable. Both men agree but only the religious perspective qualifies as being objectively moral…really. For most people in todays societies (evil people excluded) something is either right or wrong and you certainly don’t need a religious perspective to understand that and have an opinion. Anyone who doesn’t see that is blinded by their own religious bias. And Objectivity by definition is to not be influenced by personal bias. Both men had the same opinion - no one was destroyed. One man based his opinion on the societal standard of what is right or wrong. Another man based his opinion on the fact that morality must be theocratically based. As soon as he said “without a transcendent foundation…” his religious bias showed rendering his opinion un-objective. Both men had the same opinion - no one was destroyed. I doubt you see the irony due to your own apparent bias. But believe whatever makes you happy.
@@Willis57 without religion morals do not exist we are simply floating through space with no reason
@@SneakyCaleb spoken with true religous bias and also missing the point of my comment about objectivity. But in all sincerity do please keep on believing in whatever makes you happy.
Their is a reason why scientists have always been known as “mad” scientist…💥
The key to this exchange is Dr. Craig's passing implication that religions other than Christianity are "athiest". He's not arguing that there needs to be some morals giver. He's arguing that his God is the one and only morals giver. Objectivity in morals, then, he defines as relative to his God alone, which is a purely subjective stance.
Not subjective at all if God is true.
@@arcguardian In other words, if one assumes God exists then the morals one ascribes to that God are objective. Sure, but that's hardly helpful since the argument is based on an unprovable assumption.
@@bobs4429 u don't need to assume anything. Morality is either objective or subjective. U can follow each outcome to it's logical conclusion. Atheism is incapable of objective morality from a logical standpoint, theism is capable of objective morality from a logical standpoint. U don't even have to be religious or anti religious to understand those dynamics. Just plain critical thinking.
@@arcguardian The definition of "morals" is a set of beliefs about what is right and wrong. If one is Christian then he/she has a set of beliefs about what is right and wrong that comes with the faith. Sure, one can see this morality as objective as a result. But Those who are not Christians also can have beliefs about what is right and wrong, which can be valid and based on rational and critical thought and hence objective in the same sense. The perfect example is Buddhist morality. Rather then coming from a divine being, it is based on this world experience of what is beneficial and reduces suffering. I think a convincing case, then, can be made that Buddhist morality is, in fact, more objective.
Still waiting for the destroyed moment, is it in another part? Seems like the atheist answered every question.
The quiet chuckles from the audience and Peter's buffoonish look around the room was too subtle for you I guess. 😂
He just proved Craig by saying "Here's what I think about morality." or "Here's what I would do." Without a standard above mankind, morality is entirely subjective.
How did he get destroyed? I’m confused…
You should watch him debate Hugh Ross, its truly painful.
Did not see the "destruction"
And you will not. This channel is dishonest like many other religious ones.
To this date, a creator or a "fairy in the sky" is wayyy more believable than a random mutation happening over and over again with 000000000000000000000000000x.1 or probably of that happening. Not only that but the fact that atheist believe that the world was created out of thin air lmao... Scratch that..not even thin air!
You are proof that religion makes your brain stop working.
So you completely misunderstand our current understanding of evolution and abiogenesis, got it.
@@shreddedhominid1629 no you just blindly follow it with your bias theories lol.
It is known that you believe the world came to be out of nothing.. as if nothing can create something. Good day.
@@Dr_Diaz Only theist think things come from nothing. That is the worst attempt at an argument you could use, but alas, you use it anyway. smfh
@@yoshisaidit7250 only idiots believe that a random mutation with zero chances of happening created the perfection that we are as humans over and over and over and over again! Lmaoooo dumba55
seems that none of you Christians has a clue about what morality is and what objectivity means.
WLC literally admitted a naturalistic case for objective morality.
If morality is subjective - meaning that there is no objective morality at all, then simply complaining that morality is subjective is pointless.
And most importantly - if you believe that morality derives from divine command theory - in that what God says is good, is good - then you don't believe in objective morality you belive in subjective morality.
The concept of 'good and evil' is a theistic invention - a cloak that has smothered the origins and real nature of morality. This smothering has been so succesful that Christians blithely brag about their own moral values without ever considering that in fact it's an invention - an invention that when pressed, has absolutely no explanatory power. Christians claim that 'goodness' is an abstract property, yet cannot explain what it entails, other than to assert that it comports to 'God's nature'. But there are so many holes in that assertion - holes that Christians simply deny.
Naturalistic paradigms concerning morality have rigorous explanations backed by logic and empirical evidence, wihle all Christians have is "because God says so". But Christians can't even show what God actually says, let alone piece together logical reasons for why he says it.
And yet you guys have the gall to claim WLC 'destroyed' him.
The argument is illiterate.
What does it matter when a god doesn't exist?
*Most definitely you can't get something from a god that doesn't exist!*
They try to say the universe is verified by the bible.
*When It's Very Clear The Authors Had No Idea Of What The Universe Is Or How Large It as.*
THERE'S NO OTHER PLANETS MENTIONED!
Yet we see some fool say a priest CREATED the big bang. *Which Is Impossible To Be Created.*
Actually, the moral law itself is still objective coming from a source beyond the said "believer". Just because you believe that something is good, doesn't mean that the something or the goodness of that thing came from you originally. The "something" and the "goodness" thereof It's still EXTERNAL at the end of the day. In the Christian view being saved by grace through faith, Because of the grace, literally everything becomes completely objective at that point. even the fact that we have any desire to keep a certain law STILL comes from God.
So basically he stated his relative belief in what people ought to do…
You can't draw the line if there is no line to draw
Lol the only thing low bar bill destroyed is his own reputation 😂
Some serious fanatics here. I mean if you want to believe in God by all means do but don't deny the lack of logic or truth in it. Like any other cult religion is based on teachings and control there will never be any evidence of a god and if we focused on the natural beauty of the world and universe we live in then people won't find the need to look elsewhere for enlightenment
Atheism and atheist scientists leave me cold. If i thought like them i would ask myself what the point of all this is. Its depressing
They actually leave me truly inspired to learn more about what the universe holds, even if there is no ultimate meaning that doesn't matter at all to me.
Craig has never won a debate. Watch Hitchens destroy him as have others. He has no facts
Not true . Craig did better in that debate. Hitch is a great intellect but I think he wasn't razor sharp that day maybe 1 too many in the elephant room.
The hoops you guys jump through to dance around having to demonstrate the god you think exists is comical.
So where did morals come from? What is sentience and how does that "evolve"?
Craig has thoroughly argued directly for the existence of God in many other debates, papers, books, etc. This specific question wasn't about that question though, so he was addressing the actual question he was asked.
@@nicholasriveness3202
The sense of moral obligation comes from our rather unique ability to reflect on our actions and understand it's consequences to others with empathy. With our understanding of the evolutionary process, that model makes sense. Where do you think we get morals from?
@@jamesedward3619
I know. I've listened to Craig in countless debates for the last 20 years. He's a good communicator, well educated, and confident, but all his arguments for the existence of a god of any sort are bad.
@@biggregg5 That's true to a point. It can't explain any moral obligation beyond specified groups, let alone underpin a concept of human rights more broadly. Some previous civilisations existed for many centuries, but their moral obligation never extended beyond certain limits and always favoured kith and kin. Further, when you try and use evolutionary morals to explain sacrificial service to groups that are not only well outside ones own group but requires personal loss or suffering, which we tend to hold in very high esteem, you get into a muddle of pop psych speculation.
To Christians, morals are an objective truth about right conduct that God has revealed and we discover. Many of the moral codes we hold now were very counter intuitive when they were 1st expressed e.g love your enemies, forgive those who hurt you, all people are of equal worth and dignity, children and women have value beyond utility, taking the life of a stranger/ out group member is wrong. Many civilisations did not hold these as self evident truisms but were quite functional, prosperous materially and very creative.
He's a coward, plus he suffers greatly from narcissism, he's become his own god, notice how he searches for words but actually believes his theories are not only correct, but righteous in his own eyes. Poor soul...
The funny thing is thateven if morality were a utilitarian, herd derivative... where does the herd come from??? Because all I'm hearing is that morality is intrinsic and objective. Which means that all explicit and extrinsic manifestations of morality are either a) remedial of the intrinsic and objective, or b) subjective. A) would be divine origin and B) man's creation. Both could be happening; and this is my belief.
So if pastors are evil for telling ppl not to take medicine, are doctors evil for telling ppl to take a jabcine that hasn't been fully tested?
I dont see anybody being destroyed in this conversation.
It's funny how someone as intelligent, convicted and well spoken as Craig can't come up with any evidence at all for the existence of god; and neither can anybody else.
Believing in God is the same as believing in Santa Claus. Fine for a child; embarrassing for an adult.
It’s really just logical. A creation has a creator.
@@mattt21 who created the creator?
@@wigs666 Creation needs a creator. A creator doesn't... His name means the self-existent one. He exists outside of this creation, outside of space and time. You live in it. You live on the Earth. His abode is the Heavens.
using a standard of evidence like the Brady Material Rule where the ruling was decided in Brady vs Maryland that if a certain material of evidence is relevant to a case then it's admissible. This is backed by Rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence which states " To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is." Making your accusation that the Bible is made up and not based on history conjecture. And under subsection 3 it states that one way this can be achieved is through expert witnesses, in this case historians and according to an article Smithsonian mag written on December of 2021 titled "An archeological dig reignites the debate over the old testament's historical accuracy" the Bible is in fact archeologically supported. More evidence to this fact is found in other articles such as an article from the independent written in August of 2017 titled " Bible passage describing burning of Jerusalem is historically accurate, find Archeologists" that takes place in the old testament. This by itself satisfies 901 it also satisfies another subsection of 901 which is subsection 8 which is in regards to what would be considered ancient documents or data compilation which has only 3 requirements. 1. Has to be at least 20 years old, 2 has to be found in a place it would likely be, and 3. Found in a condition that creates no suspicion about it's authenticity, the Dead sea scrolls which are the earliest known copies of the old testament that are confirmed to be the same old testament read today found in the Qumran caves satisfy's all 3 requirements. So if you want to claim my rational is circular reasoning then you have a serious problem because if that were true then why does it satisfy even the federal rules of evidence? Keep in mind these are based on case laws and their rulings in other words cases came up where a standard of authenticating documents came into question and this is what was decided and it's been the rule ever since. So if you have a problem with this fact then it's your problem not mine if you have an issue arguing according to any form of standard of evidence then you have no business debating anything about truth or religious people or anything for that matter.
Atkins is a sophisticated sophist, nothing more.